Bigfoot DNA

[calwaterbear]

He's open to the idea without any bias. He publicly stated he doesn't expect to find anything new.

That statement alone disqualifies him from being a "member of Bigfootology". Instead it is a representation of how scientists work. He does have bias, all scientists do, so you design your experiment and controls to eliminate that bias.

As you say, he has publically stated that he doubts he will find anything new, he is quite confident however that he will be able to ID the sources of the samples (I'm kind of cheating here, i know that from personal communications with him).


What I am really interested in is what will be the response of the Bigfoot community IF, and I say IF, those samples all come back as identified species? Will the attack be on Sykes and his methods, and his credibility? or will he be part of the scientific conspiracy to deny the existance?

Thats what I am waiting for, the inevitable explosion following his publication of results!

 

[Jodie]

If so, then the amateur-researcher/legend-tripper should be considered not as a crank or charlatan but as Western shaman skilled in the performance of belief which can induce the Bigfoot experience…

But shaman actually believe in what they are looking for.... What you have here is a majority of individuals who are getting off on the adoration given to them for claiming to be something they aren't. I don't know about you,, but I always called those folks sick bastards.

 

[Sonny2]

Agree, Jodie. The clinical name is Narcissists.

 

[Resume]

But shaman actually believe in what they are looking for....

Betcha there were plenty who didn't. Got the crew out of camp and the shaman could go visitin' the women folk.

 

[DennyT]

The ancient Mayans believed in a bigfoot creature, but according to their records, were never able to trap or kill one, or obtain a dead body or even a bone or hide. They called it the fugisit. A recently translated passage goes something like: "Where the fugisit?!"

 

[Night Walker]

Kinda like releasing your inner beast?

Kinda... triggering something innate and primal, for sure. Perhaps evolutionary biology will offer some insights in the future...

But shaman actually believe in what they are looking for.... What you have here is a majority of individuals who are getting off on the adoration given to them for claiming to be something they aren't. I don't know about you,, but I always called those folks sick bastards.

Are you suggesting that Bigfooters are lacking the belief in the creature they are looking for? Is that really your experience?

Interestingly, there is little/nothing to differentiate between those who truly believe in Bigfoot from those who only make-believe in Bigfoot.

Seeking the adoration of one's peers is natural. Like others here, I too have been on the receiving end of some less-than-pleasant stuff from within the 'Footer subculture but it is also natural for folk to protect what they hold dear - particularly beliefs. Although I don't approve of their methods in this regard, I think it is counter-productive to get personal about it.

Eyes on the prize, and all that...

 

[Correa Neto]

Its like tele-evangelists, priests, pastors, etc. Do they all actually believe in everything they preach? Some yes, but others are just in it for the money. These may even have started as believers, but as they go up in the hierarchy, some form of profit becomes their main motivation.

I suspect those at the bottom of bigfootery food chain and a number of folks actively involved in it (I would dare say some of them could be called the bigfoot militia) do believe. I also suspect the higher you climb within bigfootery hierarchy, the less you actually believe.

 

[Jodie]

Night walker, in answer to your question, see Correa's answer above. When the methods cross the line of being more than just an opinion then it becomes more suspicious to me as being related to other motives having nothing to do with belief in bigfoot.

 

[Cbengalensis]

I suppose I may be insulting a scared cow here, but cultish behavior, alliegence to dogmatic ideas, and lack of critical thinking skills seems to be equally well represented on both sides of the fence, by both those thinking Bigfoot exists and those skeptical or insistent that it cannot exist.

Seems it's a fashionable talking point in this forum to malign people considered "the opposition", but from my point of view, the problem exists on both sides and not facing up to that is one of the reasons for a lack of solution in this debate.

My 2 cents worth.

CB

(note: I've seem a tactic when someoneone raises this question, that some offended by the remark go on the attack, demand citations or proof, but generalized perceptions are shaped often by a collective body of perceptions accumulated over time, hard to cite, which is why this is clearly identified as a perception of mine personally, rather that pro-offered as a statement of fact. It's simply my opinion, as I see it, for your consideration.

I presume we each have an equal right to express our opinions, even if they disagree with other opinions.

 

[LTC8K6]

I suppose I may be insulting a scared cow here, but cultish behavior, alliegence to dogmatic ideas, and lack of critical thinking skills seems to be equally well represented on both sides of the fence, by both those thinking Bigfoot exists and those skeptical or insistent that it cannot exist.

Seems it's a fashionable talking point in this forum to malign people considered "the opposition", but from my point of view, the problem exists on both sides and not facing up to that is one of the reasons for a lack of solution in this debate.

My 2 cents worth.

CB

(note: I've seem a tactic when someoneone raises this question, that some offended by the remark go on the attack, demand citations or proof, but generalized perceptions are shaped often by a collective body of perceptions accumulated over time, hard to cite, which is why this is clearly identified as a perception of mine personally, rather that pro-offered as a statement of fact. It's simply my opinion, as I see it, for your consideration.

I presume we each have an equal right to express our opinions, even if they disagree with other opinions.

I try not to do any of those things and mostly I do not. I'm sure I have slipped on occasion and been too harsh with someone. Mostly I try to treat everyone fairly.

I think I am very patient with believers most of the time.

There are no sacred cows here as far as I know.

 

[GeeMack]

I suppose I may be insulting a scared cow here, but cultish behavior, alliegence to dogmatic ideas, and lack of critical thinking skills seems to be equally well represented on both sides of the fence, by both those thinking Bigfoot exists and those skeptical or insistent that it cannot exist.

Seems it's a fashionable talking point in this forum to malign people considered "the opposition", but from my point of view, the problem exists on both sides and not facing up to that is one of the reasons for a lack of solution in this debate.

That silly argument seems to get trotted out on a regular basis. The rational, intelligent, skeptical solution based on the scientific method is this: Until and unless objective evidence is presented which supports the claim that Bigfoot exists, it is reasonable to provisionally hold the position that it does not. It is those who believe Bigfoot exists who are neglecting that reality. If the believers want the solution to be "it exists", it is wholly up to them to objectively demonstrate that. And the failure to do so belongs entirely to them. It is not true that "the problem exists on both sides". It is the responsibility of the Bigfoot believers to face up to that.

I presume we each have an equal right to express our opinions, even if they disagree with other opinions.

Indeed we each have a right to express our opinions. Those opinions which cannot be objectively supported may be dismissed. Opinions that claim a larger-than-human primate exists in North America in numbers which allow for procreation and continuation of the species, when offered without objective support, may be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[River]

I suppose I may be insulting a scared cow here, but cultish behavior, alliegence to dogmatic ideas, and lack of critical thinking skills seems to be equally well represented on both sides of the fence, by both those thinking Bigfoot exists and those skeptical or insistent that it cannot exist.

Seems it's a fashionable talking point in this forum to malign people considered "the opposition", but from my point of view, the problem exists on both sides and not facing up to that is one of the reasons for a lack of solution in this debate.

My 2 cents worth.

CB

(note: I've seem a tactic when someoneone raises this question, that some offended by the remark go on the attack, demand citations or proof, but generalized perceptions are shaped often by a collective body of perceptions accumulated over time, hard to cite, which is why this is clearly identified as a perception of mine personally, rather that pro-offered as a statement of fact. It's simply my opinion, as I see it, for your consideration.

I presume we each have an equal right to express our opinions, even if they disagree with other opinions.

Opinions are great. Facts are even better. Fact: bigfoot does not exist. Feel free to prove otherwise. Postulating that the dirty mean skeptics make it this way is gobbledygook. It's time the bigfooters either step up with some real evidence, or be willing to concede it's just not there. Enough fakery, and games. Either you have the thing or you don't. We know what the real answer is. Using the fallacy of Russell's teapot times infinity does not make it any more legitimate than mermaids.

Why keep hand waving and brow brushing when your hand is empty? There is nothing there to be found. It is a snipe hunt. If you want to lend credibility to the cause, then lead the bigfooters to the truth instead of through the mud over and over again with ridiculous schemes and stories.

 

[Cbengalensis]

That silly argument seems to get trotted out on a regular basis. The rational, intelligent, skeptical solution based on the scientific method is this: Until and unless objective evidence is presented which supports the claim that Bigfoot exists, it is reasonable to provisionally hold the position that it does not. It is those who believe Bigfoot exists who are neglecting that reality. If the believers want the solution to be "it exists", it is wholly up to them to objectively demonstrate that. And the failure to do so belongs entirely to them. It is not true that "the problem exists on both sides". It is the responsibility of the Bigfoot believers to face up to that.




Indeed we each have a right to express our opinions. Those opinions which cannot be objectively supported may be dismissed. Opinions that claim a larger-than-human primate exists in North America in numbers which allow for procreation and continuation of the species, when offered without objective support, may be dismissed as nonsense.

Geemack:

Perhaps you misread my post. The problem I thought existing on both sides was cultish behavior, allegience to dogma, and lack of critical thinking skills.

River:

Ditto

CB

 

[River]

Geemack:

Perhaps you misread my post. The problem I thought existing on both sides was cultish behavior, allegience to dogma, and lack of critical thinking skills.

River:

Ditto

CB

I think you'd find us dirty mean skeptics are very open to real evidence, and gasp, even a real bigfoot body. The thing is, it's just not out there. To teach people that it is reeks of dishonesty at best, and at worst profits by means of fraud.

I love the legend of bigfoot, and the Patterson Gimlin film. The whole thing is pretty cool. But the idea of teaching it as a reality is not.

Is it your position that a large bipedal primate that can reach heights of 8-10 feet and 800 or more pounds (theoretically speaking of course, for an adult male) and breeding population exist and that it has encounters with humans often (sometimes in suburban areas) yet still remains undiscovered in 2012?

Or are you one of those people that feels like millions should be spent funded by our government to search for the mermaid, errr sasmanach?

It boils down to, put up or shut up. (calling out all bigfooters!) Show us the monkey, or concede it is a fantasy. Is that agreeable? If not explain why not.

 

[Cbengalensis]

I think you'd find us dirty mean skeptics are very open to real evidence, and gasp, even a real bigfoot body. The thing is, it's just not out there. To teach people that it is reeks of dishonesty at best, and at worst profits by means of fraud.

I love the legend of bigfoot, and the Patterson Gimlin film. The whole thing is pretty cool. But the idea of teaching it as a reality is not.

Is it your position that a large bipedal primate that can reach heights of 8-10 feet and 800 or more pounds (theoretically speaking of course, for an adult male) and breeding population exist and that it has encounters with humans often (sometimes in suburban areas) yet still remains undiscovered in 2012?

Or are you one of those people that feels like millions should be spent funded by our government to search for the mermaid, errr sasmanach?

It boils down to, put up or shut up. (calling out all bigfooters!) Show us the monkey, or concede it is a fantasy. Is that agreeable? If not explain why not.

River:

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of "mean dirty skeptics". Skepticism is essential to finding truth.

Second, I don't have a "position" on whether that thing called bigfoot or sasquatch exists. I don't know if it does or does not.

Third, the mermaid/sasquatch thing is an argumentative smokescreen. The mermaid is an entity predicated on a hybrid anatomy of a mammal and a fish, which is biologically dubious, certainly unpresidented. The bigfoot thing apparently is some type of hominid or primate, and hominids and primates do exist. Poor analogy, if you reduce it to base anatomy.

Finally, I have stated i don't have a solution. I don't think anybody else does either, and I am curious why there's no apparent solution. Seems there should be by now. So I'm studying the issue from the standpoint of trying to understand why both sides fail to achieve a conclusive proof of their position.

CB

 

[Resume]

Geemack:

Perhaps you misread my post. The problem I thought existing on both sides was cultish behavior, allegience to dogma, and lack of critical thinking skills.

River:

Ditto

CB

There's nothing cultish about asking for credible, objective evidence for the a existence of a controversial cryptid that some allege to encounter frequently, and whose habitat is known to those claimants.

There's nothing dogmatic about asking those claimants to put up or shut up already.

It makes good sense.

 

[GeeMack]

Geemack:

Perhaps you misread my post. The problem I thought existing on both sides was cultish behavior, allegience to dogma, and lack of critical thinking skills.

Those who take the position that Bigfoot does not exist, based on an absolute lack of objective evidence for its existence, are applying critical thinking skills, not lacking them. Those who insist that Bigfoot believers take responsibility for their own claims and knock off the dishonest tactic of deflecting the burden of proof are applying critical thinking skills, not lacking them. You're trying the same old stale and dishonest argument that pretty much all believers in nonsense try at one time or another. You want to start the "Bigfoot exists" discussion as if it's a 50/50 proposition. You want half the points right out of the gate, and you didn't earn them. No attempt to mis-characterize skeptics with admonitions of cultish behavior and allegiance to dogma is going to get you that. You'll get no traction dragging skeptics down to the level of the believers. That's not how science works and it's not how reality works.

If you want "Bigfoot exists", you start where rational intelligent people start, and that is at "there is no objective evidence supporting the claim that Bigfoot exists". The argument has to be built up from there. Do notice that when it comes to objective evidence for its existence, the Bigfoot believers' case is still at zero.

 

[GeeMack]

Finally, I have stated i don't have a solution. I don't think anybody else does either, and I am curious why there's no apparent solution. Seems there should be by now. So I'm studying the issue from the standpoint of trying to understand why both sides fail to achieve a conclusive proof of their position.

The people who do not believe Bigfoot exists have no responsibility whatsoever to accommodate the failure of those who do believe it exists. They have no responsibility to achieve proof of their position, conclusive or otherwise. It is dishonest to expect them to.

But consider this: There is one single pragmatic solution to the dilemma which you seem to have, a single answer that would easily and fully explain why no objective evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that Bigfoot exists. It's a solution that can be expressed as a single sentence of 4 or 5 words and requires no rationalizations or excuses. Skeptics and critical thinkers understand what that solution is. Perhaps if you apply a bit of critical thinking on your own, you, too, can arrive there.

Try it: No objective evidence has ever been provided to support the claim that Bigfoot exists because _________.

 

[River]

River:

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of "mean dirty skeptics". Skepticism is essential to finding truth.

Second, I don't have a "position" on whether that thing called bigfoot or sasquatch exists. I don't know if it does or does not.

Third, the mermaid/sasquatch thing is an argumentative smokescreen. The mermaid is an entity predicated on a hybrid anatomy of a mammal and a fish, which is biologically dubious, certainly unpresidented. The bigfoot thing apparently is some type of hominid or primate, and hominids and primates do exist. Poor analogy, if you reduce it to base anatomy.

Finally, I have stated i don't have a solution. I don't think anybody else does either, and I am curious why there's no apparent solution. Seems there should be by now. So I'm studying the issue from the standpoint of trying to understand why both sides fail to achieve a conclusive proof of their position.

CB

Well Cbengalensis, I can respect your position of "no position". I do feel like you might be the one putting up a smokescreen. The comparisons I made are good because they are both social constructs which share many eye witness accounts and many hoaxes/stories. Neither have any supporting evidence that it exists.

The solution is not proving a negative. The solution is there is no evidence to support any of the claims. After so many claims, and so many purported bigfoots (of enormous reported size) with nothing for evidence the conclusion must be it is a social construct. Do you feel there is no solution for mermaids? No solution for unicorns? Pick another social construct if you don't like the comparisons I used. Any will do.

The evidence that has been claimed is either misidentified or hoaxed by man. You can't claim the footprints are "evidence of bigfoot". I can claim it is evidence of man. (with many instances of "proof" to back up the claim that man can and has time and time again) When do you start "calling a spade a spade"?

This claimed DNA evidence is a great example. Lets watch and see how it all plays out shall we? Who here thinks they have bigfoot DNA?

Do you see how ridiculous it is? The comparison to mermaids is fine. No one expects to see a real live or dead bigfoot specimen. Not even bigfooters.

 

[Drewbot]

Second, I don't have a "position" on whether that thing called bigfoot or sasquatch exists. I don't know if it does or does not.

Will you concede that there is no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of a giant, hairy, bipedal, unclassified wood-apeman (goes by Bigfoot or Sasquatch) living in the semi-rural/rural areas of our country?

I will concede that sometimes my posts might seem a little overbearing, or perhaps sarcastic.

Please note, that it is not a requirement that I prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. It is an impossible requirement. It is often stated by Footers, something like this: "You (me) haven't proven they don't exist" therefore "You(I)can't say they don't exist."

This is usually offered when I say something like, "Bigfoot doesn't exist, because there is not evidence that it does exist. when someone provides the evidence of it's existence then I will revise my claim." In 1900, I would have said the same thing about Mountain Gorillas, and in 1902 I would have been shown to be wrong.